This may seem like a strange or irksome question. I understand why. But it is a particularly relevant and pertinent question. My interest here is not to attract interest or to razz anyone. That being said, I am interested in counteracting a commonplace proclivity of ours to accentuate certain particularities of God that attract our attention or idiosyncratic interests that we tend to promote beyond all others. This tendency is a pitfall that we often succumb to without intending to. All the more reason to maintain an honest and humble cognizance of such a 'blindspot'.
It was God, after all, that forbad idolatry in the first place (Ex.20:4). The Decalogue is clear on that point. It is imperative we understand that the first two commandments fittingly preserve God's place as "the Lord your God" (Ex.20:2). He will not tolerate any form of ignoble usurpation. God made it unequivocally obvious that He is a jealous God that will not tolerate any substitute. In conjunction with the giving of the new tablets, imminently after the 'golden calf' debauchal, the Lord our God reasserts His jealousy by way of amplification. Instead of remarking, "I the Lord your God am a jealous God" as He did in Ex.20:5b He vociferously states, "for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." (Ex. 34:14)
Well then, how is it possible to idolize God? First we must recognize that the antiquarian idol worship of antiquity, particularly germane to the O.T epoch, is not the idolatrous worship of our day strictly speaking. Then, idolatry precipitated carved figures and hand crafted images more or less.This represented more of a reduction of metaphysical speculations to inanimate statues. This was the product of a irreverent religous spirit.
Idolatry takes on different expressions in our day post Renaissance and Enlightenment. It takes on shades of autonomy and the characteristics of self gratification devoid of metaphysical interest for the most part. Present day idolatry is very much an existential practice that revolves around corporeal (physical) cravings in a much different way. This is indicative of a reverent irreligous spirit.
As Christian's who worship the Lord our God, as revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ, we must guard against incorporating existential idolatry into our spheres of worship. Our idolatry rears its ugly head in how we worship the Lord our God. The tendency within Christendom is to aggrandize certain features of Gods being or to gravitate to certain attributes of His nature. This is exhibited when we 'amen' aspects of a sermon that highlights God's mercy while failing to 'amen' sermons that magnify His justice. Or we sing the songs that praise His 'forgiving grace'' while failing to sing the songs celebrating His 'electing grace'.
This idolatry is also seen in how we read His revealed word. When we gravitate to passages that accentuate the responsibility of Christians in sanctification while glossing over or ignoring the role of the triune God in sanctification for instance. The former 'in isolation' promotes moralism, legalism and self-righteousness while the latter 'in isolation' promotes passivity, anit-nomianism and quietism. This is especially true within the dialectic of grace/law and election/free-will.
The Psalmist described idols as the 'work of human hands' in Psalm 115. He goes on to say, "they have mouths , but do not see. They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell. They have hands, but do not feel; feet but do not walk, and they do not make a sound in their throat..." Now pay attention to the effects of idolatry..."Those who make them become like them; so do all who trust in them." (Psalm 115:4-8)
This has application for Christian idolatrous worship. For example when we worship Gods justice exclusively and hand craft a God of justice stripped of mercy the tendency is to not 'hear', 'taste', 'see' or 'feel' God's mercy and compassion because all those capacities are governed by blind, deaf, tasteless and apathetic justice. The opposite is equally true. When we worship God's mercy exclusively the tendency is to not 'hear', 'taste', 'see' or 'feel' God's justice because all those capacities are governed by blind, deaf, tasteless and empathetic mercy.
It is idolatrous to tout one or even two attributes of God's being to the exclusion of all other revealed eternal qualities. Such worship confuses God's unity, eternality, majesty,simplicity etc. This practice invariably idolizes God and reduces His attributes to the things worshipped rather than God which actually renders aspects of God to be demi-gods which is more indicative of gnostic-mysticism.
While there are those within Christendom who have mistakenly used the formulae of 'history' as a central motif that dictates their theological postulations and presuppositional templates, (cf. Pannenberg and Cullmann) history is inarguably and unavoidably a testament to divine handiwork and prerogative.
Recorded history, while being resplendent with static historical datum and facticity, gives credence to the reliability of the Christian claims that Christ is the historically incarnate figure that palpably manifests and interprets GOD (John 1:18) in the spatio-temporal sphere of human existence and phenomena. This can be seen beyond the assertions of biblical nomenclature as special or particular revelation.
Natural philosophy itself attests to the incarnational Christ event. Obviously, this would not be technically true, for none of the philosophical systems mentioned below would support such a claim. But it is actually true in that natural philosophy burgeoned and developed along historical lines in a way that necessitated the incarnation, albeit unwittingly. It was an unavoidable inevitability. The historical incarnation was the natural outcome of natural philosophies trajectory. Without being cognizant of the progressive implications of their cumulative postulations, their postulations actually presupposed the Christ event.
Systematized philosophy finds its ostensible origin, as a deliberate discipline anyway, with the Ionians of the pre-Grecian society and cultus. The cosmology that emerged was a naturalistic one that precipitated, by and large, from the arcane and naturalistic cosmogonies that predated it. Inferences drawn from nature predominated the philosophical milieu (see the Homeric and Hesiodic cosmological landscape). As Frederick Copleston S.J. has written, "in the period of philosophy's childhood it was Nature as a whole which first occupied their attention"
It would appear that the primary interest within the naturalistic pursuit was in ascertaining the essence of things. The early Ionians such as Thales of Miletus, Anaximander, Anaximenes were pursuant of a singular unifying 'essence'. The Pythagoreans, while personifying a distinctly scientific spirit, gave credence to a "hearth of the Universe" or an identifiable, yet, nebulous "One'. Heraclitus, who was intent on asserting the constant flux of phenomena, maintained that "Reality is One". This unifying pursuit was a pervasive one that all philosophical schools intrepidly sought although through different methodologies..
What is more, the Pythagoreans committed concentrated interest in and indeed popularized the 'mystery-religion' cultus. This praxis assigned a veritable exclusivity to its claims which was bolstered by the metaphysical, immaterial or incorporeal 'essence' of whatever school of thought it espoused. This mystery-religion dialectic was one that had been reverberating throughout the rational thought life of the aforementioned schools and beyond their periods culminating ultimately with the Roman religious milieu.
The naturalistic pursuit of a metaphysical 'essence' coalesced with the "mystery religion" cultus at a nexus of historic proportion; a nexus that interestingly enough is marked by the incarnational Christ event!!
Stoicism was the premier philosophy during that nexus. It represented a fascination with the ethical applications of the foregoing within individual life an accordance with the "Divine Will". This invariably gave rise to the pursuit of union with the divine 'essence' or the metaphysical "One". Stoicism, though, had no answer for this pursuit considering that it demanded a theoretical and practical separation from the corporeal/physical while the real "Divine Will", the only 'One" (which they were seeking) was making His way into the corporeal/physical world. Moreover, the Gnostic empire, which was very much compatible with Stoicism in many respects, was also a force during that epochal landscape.
These later philosophical advances were outcomes of antecedent Neo-Platonistic underpinnings. The latent Neo-Platonic thought that was still reverberating with its pursuit of an 'ecstatic union' with God dovetailed with the Stoic and Gnostic obsession with 'mystery religion
The mytho-historical preoccupation combined with the mystical interest of naturalistic philosophy actually proved to be a catalyst of sorts for the 'super-natural' and historical incarnation. Without realizing it exponents of natural philosophy substantiated the viability of the GOD-MAN...JESUS CHRIST through their own assertions and categories. Though that teeming philosophical landscape was not the cause of the historical self-revelation of the incarnate God-man, Jesus Christ, it certainly was not an accidental phenomena that was without Providential use.
In any account, what the aforementioned philosophical practitioners left to the language of myth Father God established and actualized in the language of historic fact through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The same Christ who Paul locates the 'pleroma' of Gnosticism (Col 1:19) in and who Paul locates the 'secret' of Stoicism in (Phil.4:12). What those systems could not recognize by their own admission through their 'rational dialectic' (irrational dialectic actually) Paul was locating in Christ.
I think this is an especially pertinent question in our post modern culture that is obsessed with figure head mentality and cultural tribalism. The cult of personality as it were continues to linger. It is commonplace for people to gravitate towards characters or personalities who exemplify certain characteristics and proclivity's that they either identify with or characteristics and proclivity's that they are devoid of. There is also the crux of providing an appealing atmosphere or sub-culture that becomes the locus of attraction.
Within this culture personalities are embraced for all the wrong reasons. They are promoted or embraced because they are different, because they are dynamic, because they are 'controversial', because they are seemingly anti-establishment in rhetoric or theatrics, so forth and so on. I fear that when this is appealed to, though, all that is being accomplished is that of 'caricatures'. In other words, personalities attract only those folk who identify with those characteristics. This is disingenuous though. It is not so much the message that attracts people or the 'truth' that attracts people but the methodology, the theatrics or the personality.
This creates a culture of superficiality and 'drones' who are committed to the new hype or the latest rhetorical fad instead of the message. (There are of course exceptions to this.)
Christ's own ministry underscores this point...Jesus attracted large crowds because of His dynamic personality and 'miraculous' ministry or activity that generated an electric atmosphere. However, we find that when He spoke difficult truths or when His rhetoric became perspectivally intrusive many abandoned Him.
I think it beneficial for ministers or ministries to counteract this generic 'attraction' or superficial 'gravitation' by balancing their respective 'cultural ghetto' or 'theatrical leitmotifs' with truths that are presented in a counter-cultural manner to that 'cultural market'. Is the church to be focused on such fleeting cultural dynamics?? I think not for it inevitably breeds cultural relativism and cloistered communities. Of course we should become all things to all in order to win some (I Cor.9:19-23)....so long as we aren't reinforcing 'fleeting trends' (Rom.12:2) to the extent that those cultural traditions become the element of interest and not the message of the gospel.
Not only do we need to counteract the modus vivendi of advancing culture over message we also need to contend with promoting ministers over Christ. People have the tendency to also gravitate towards 'servants' rather than He whom servants serve as I have alluded to above. (To be sure these two are more often than not inextricably bound.) Whenever and wherever ministers do not counteract the attraction of people to personalities or personal allure they risk creating a loyalty and/or dependency upon themselves amongst the rank and file of their congregations. This is known as the 'fanbase' in the variegated sphere of entertainment.
Paul addressed the church at Corinth regarding this mentality of polarizing to figure heads. Some were following Cephas(Peter), Apollos, Paul et cetera. (I Cor.1-4) Paul repudiated this credulity and went on to describe those who who were romanticising 'men' as babes and men of the flesh (I Cor.3:1-5). Paul eventually interjected that they were to be regarded as servants of Christ and stewards of the gospel (I Cor.4:1) Paul consciously and deliberately counteracted figure head mentality by saying elsewhere, "follow me, as I follow Christ" (I Cor. 11:1). We must vigorously reinforce Christ within the hearts and minds of the church. He alone is head of the church..Ministers are but servants of Christ, under-shepherds of The good Shepherd!! We must not be in the business of making personal disciples but in making Christian disciples.
Some will contend that Paul also listed Christ followers as an unhealthy faction in I Corinthians 1. This shows a superficial handling of scripture. For that would itself contradict Christ's own statement, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself pick up his cross and follow me" (Mark 8:34) Paul's remark in I Corinthians about those who tout following Christ exclusively was in the context of division. Paul's point there was not that following Christ was wrong but that using that attitude as an elitist claim that contributed to division.
We must make concerted effort to direct peoples attention to Christ and Christ alone. This means comporting ourselves in a humble manner that always defers to Jesus in all things. When aggrandized and honored we must respond by attributing whatever is being praised to the grace of our Lord. As Paul advanced, "I am what I am by the grace of God" (I Cor.15) and again,"Let him who boasts boast in the Lord" (I Cor.1:31)
I was conversant with two friends this morning in a local watering hole and during the course of the conversation I was reminded of a noxious mis-use of scripture. A malversation that is more common than we might like to concede. This mis-use or misrepresentation is found whenever scripture is used at the expense of violating other aspects of scripture. It goes without saying that we are all susceptible of unwittingly overlooking various verses when gravitating towards others. However, during this conversation it ostensibly appeared that the mis-use was egregiously perpetrated. One principle of biblical import was advanced while ignoring other biblical injunctions and precepts in order to "justify" or "give credibility" to a certain action.
This is a common tactic when an individual is intending to divert attention from a sin or sins. An isolated verse is mis-used to substantiate sinful actions or to blind others from our sinful intentions. We all know when we are culpable of doing this for we know our own thoughts and motives (I Cor.2:11). Even if we have convinced ourselves (or deceived ourselves into thinking) that our unjustifiable mis-use is in some way righteous the Holy Spirit "who searches everything" knows our thoughts and motives.
What are we to do when the law of God or the word of God is used in such away that lawlessness is promoted? That may seem like an oxymoron at prime facie, first glance. I mean using the law unlawfully!! However, it is a pitfall we must all be conscious of when we are making application of scripture as well as when we are giving and receiving counsel. The apostle Paul alludes to this danger in his first epistle to young Timothy. He writes, "Now we know the law is good, if one uses it lawfully" (I Tim.1:8). That being true the converse is equally true. The good law can be used unlawfully. The inerrant word of God and be used erroneously. Paul was aware of this and so we should be aware of this as well.
Christ castigated the Pharisees for employing a Mosaic allowance in a manner that violated an explicit article of the Decalogue (Ten commandments). They advanced "Corban" to avoid fulfilling the command to honor mother and father (Mark7:9-13) Corban was a tradition or stratagem concocted to circumvent honoring parents by way of supporting them financially. This rouse was based upon the word of God relating to vows. Vows in the law precluded retraction. Once a vow was made, particularly a vow unto the Lord, it could not be broken (Lev.27, Num.30:1-2). The Pharisee's declared their possessions "Corban" and in so doing dishonored their parents.The Pharisee's utilized the law to violate the law!!
Joseph was also in a similar quandary. He found himself in a position to be legally right and justifiable in his actions while being veritably wrong. He was within lawful allowance, biblically, to absolve his betrothal with Mary once she was found to be with child (Matt.1:18-19). He would have been wrong in so doing for Mary had not been with another man as he supposed or better, deduced. Auspiciously, an angel appeared to him in a dream and convinced him otherwise.
What are we to do as I posed above? We are well served to evaluate our motives in how we use scripture and depend on the Holy Spirit of truth who convicts to guard and sanctify our hearts and mind. Scripture is not ours to use according to our whim. We need to pertinaciously and doggedly guard against mis-using scripture by superimposing our purposes upon scripture for our use thereby mutilating the purposes and meanings in scripture that God has intended. We need to surround ourselves with a community of believers, the church of Christ, who reinforce a biblical ethos. We stand before an on looking world and an on looking church.
Of late and recent I have been in a unique season of ministry. As lead minister in a local church I have had to prayerfully and contemplatively give much thought to and counsel regarding the reality of suffering. I have had the honor and privilege of serving the church while she has been undergoing.....well, a veritable "season" of suffering in many ways. The loss of loved ones, physical maladies and relational betrayals are at the top of the list. The grace of God has been noticeably present thankfully and the church has remained steadfast in His grace. Nonetheless, the cumbersome task for anyone who is in the throws of grief, mourning and suffering is how to endure and persevere. It goes without saying that all the associated pressures and real experiences do not simply cease to exist.
That being said, how ought we as Christians who exercise faith/trust in our sovereign Father interact with such seemingly debilitating and smothering occasions. Well the vox dei, or voice of God as found in scripture provides us with the right prescription!!
The observation recorded in the book of Ecclesiastes is a good starting point I think. The sage wisdom of its author should ground us in a reality that is divinely governed. He remarks, "For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born and a time to die...a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to break down and a time to build up, a time to weep and a time to laugh, and time to more and a time to dance" and so forth (Eccl.3:1-8) Although the prodigious observer is making general observations regarding the existential ebb and flow of human existence it nonetheless reflects truth that God chose to be revealed then; and thus embraced now. One kernel of truth we find in the assertion of "times" and "seasons" is that though humanity is inundated with a broad array of empirical experience throughout, God is nonetheless aware that our present life consists of those variegated periods of varying existence and experience; the likes of which are polar existential opposites.
Our heavenly Father is acutely aware of what season we may find ourselves in and relays to us through this biblical book that these seasons by definition have a beginning and an end. Seasons are periods of transition and change - that are in a very real sense necessary for sustaining life. Sin has surely altered the experience of human existence but not so much so that it has altered the quality and character of God's. He still sovereignly exercises superintendence over every season.....just ask Joseph after his brothers betrayed him. His "season" of suffering served to establish a "season" of proliferation and redemption!! It must always be borne in mind that "not even a sparrow falls to the ground apart from Father God (Matt.10:29-31) and that He "sends rain on the just and the unjust"(Matt.5:45).
Secondly, it would seem that Paul's outlook on suffering is especially instructional for us whenever we find ourselves in a season of suffering, grief or breaking down. Paul didn't have a nihilistic view of suffering by any stretch of the imagination. Nor did he exist in a state of denial regarding his suffering. (I Cor.2:3, II Cor.11:16-10, Eph.3:13) He wrote the Philippians, "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain...My desire is to depart and to be with Christ for that is far better" (Phil.1:21,23). He penned that epistle while under Roman imprisonment as he was awaiting a hearing before the caesar, who was then Nero.
What is important to note though is that his attention was not in escapism but in how his suffering could be redeemed. He was more conscientious of how his suffering could serve the purposes of God and minister to the church as he pens, "But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith...(Phil.1:24-25).
Instead, of being consumed with his well being and instead of withdrawing from serving the church Paul looks to how his suffering can be redeemed for God's glory and how it can be utilized for the benefit of Christ's church.(Ephesians 3:13) [Parenthetically, I am reminded of Jonathon Edwards who buried approx. 10 of his children who died due to illness and disease yet remained unabatedly vigorous in gospel ministry.]
Other than succumbing to discontent and disenfranchisement because of his less than ideal circumstances Paul interpreted those accidents of history or circumstances of life as a means for God's providential activity through his personal role and ministry. It is easy to forget that God sovereignly and providentially used the sufferings of Christ for His glory and purposes. Christ's sufferings of course were essential in our redemption. Suffering and tragedy in this life, albeit difficult, are "seasons" of life that God formatively and redemptively uses. Our sufferings hear and now God redeems for His glory and our good.
As Keith Mathison opines, "Giving in to despair and cynicism is the easy way out when we feel overwhelmed by our circumstances. On the otherhand, casting our cares on God, refusing to worry, and doing what we need to do with faith, hope and joy is difficult. We must trust God in such circumstances...We must trust that He loves us and that whatever circumstances He brings our way are for a reason"
The aforementioned I think reinforces the words of Christ....."therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life" (Matt.5), for, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness" (II Cor.12:9). This bestowal of grace is given by, through and in Christ, who suffered in an immeasurable way. Who better to bestow grace upon those who are suffering than he who suffered most and is thereby able "to sympathize with our weaknesses" (Heb.4:14-16).
As Isaac Watts penned,
"The agonies of Christ:
Now let our pains be all forgot,
Our hearts no more repine;
Our sufferings are not worth a thought,
When, Lord, compared with thine"
Credo ut Intelligam
Does your experience of covenant within the church reflect a conditional works oriented schema as grounds of acceptance or "justification"?? The following are a few characteristics that are produced from a church where such an erroneous emphasis on covenant is espoused.
If what you do or what you commit yourself to do is done as a means to be accepted by a person or persons within the church, particularly leadership, this is probably true. Even the bombastic Peter succumbed to this pitfall while in Galatia. While he was eating with the Gentiles certain Jewish men from James approached and Peter subsequently withdrew and separated himself...."fearing the circumcision party" (Gal. 2:11-14) This conveyed an acceptance and justification based upon something other than the gospel. Paul retorted, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile, and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?" Peter comported himself in a certain way that sinfully discriminated as he complied to a standard of acceptance contrary to the gospel. This is indicative of covenantal nominalism.
If what you do and say is governed by the interest of obtaining validation from a minister, this is probably true. This is a characteristic of covenantal nominalism. Instead, Paul admonishes even slaves to conduct themselves in a certain way "not by way of eye-service, as people pleasers....Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men" (Col.3:22,23)
If when your interests and pursuits don't strictly conform to what a respective group within the church propagates, this is probably true. This was a crux of the church at Rome. There was division within the church over certain ascetics and ethnic preferences. One strata supposed it good to eat anything while another didn't, one strata esteemed one day as better than another while another esteems all days alike (Romans 14) These factions were "covenanting" with one another based upon something other than Jesus Christ. This too is an expression of covenantal nominalism.
If what Paul describes as "man pleasing" (I Thess. 2:4) is the prevalent atmosphere and chief end within any given church......this is invariably true. This praxis permeated the church at Corinth. As false apostles entered into the fray the credulous Corinthians were captivated by their bravado, presentation and intrigue so much so that they were being taken hostage by their wiles to the extent that they "willfully subjected" themselves to their abuse.
As Paul describes this, "For you gladly bear with fools....you bear it if someone makes slaves of you, or devours you, or takes advantage of you, of puts on airs, or strikes you in the face." (I Cor.11:20). The Corinthians were rejecting Paul because of his inability to be loquacious and bold. They were determining who was acceptable or justifiable based upon superficial preference.(cf. I Cor. 1:10-17) As a result, they became subject to the malevolence of their personified preference. This is another outworking of covenantal nominalism.
What is covenantal nominalism? It is a paradigmatic schema, that evolved from Pelagianism, which postulates that individuals must meet a precondition (other than Christ) to be accepted or justified. The above indicators are merely bi-products of this soteriology (doctrine of salvation).
This framework that produces the aforementioned mood and practical effects emerged around the 14th and 15th centuries. It was propounded and popularized by the via moderna. Advocates of the via moderna, such as William of Ockham and Gabriel Biel, borrowed an analogy from the secular dynamics of economic and political covenants to disguise their Pelagianism from their critics. In so doing they appropriated the schemes of secular covenants into their religious rule(ethos) and practice(praxis).
The few characteristics I listed above are expressions of a church culture that transposes the New Covenant in Christ Jesus with a secular variety of covenant that systemically redefines grounds of justification in a more or less anthropocentric manner. Ideas have practical consequences.
Credo ut intelligam
Jesus Christ should be the singular point of emphasis upon which all matters hinge. For that reason I am especially grateful for those notable ministers, many of whom are nationally recognized, who maintain a Christological emphasis in all things. Ministers, en toto must always infix their attention upon Christ in all oratory, discipline, doctrine, counsel et cetera. For present interests particularly all ministers are to govern their preaching and/or pedagogy Christologically. Christ must be inexhorably advanced in and through the teeth of our every assertion. Otherwise, variegated forms of religion prevail.
This singular and central priority was unabashedly reclaimed within the epistemological matrix of Medieval Christianity so much so that it was a defining schema. Yet, the seminal cry, "Solus Christus", which was dogmatically celebrated in that re-formative period, seems to have faded into the recesses of the evangelical consciousness. Inauspiciously, it would seem that, on the whole, priority pertaining to the primacy of Christ has greatly diminished in our day. Many high-churchmen and purist liturgists transpose the centrality of Christ with forms and symbolic representations. Many television evangelists attract crowds by way of supernatural lures and elaborate productions to dazzle the eyes and ears.....Christ is noticeably absent or marginalized. Outreach efforts are commonly designed simply to counteract poverty or provide charity. Often times these do-gooder efforts fail to pronounce Christ. Many a minister have transformed themselves into ethicist's and moralists without adequately couching such categories in the gospel of Jesus Christ thereby mass producing self righteous and mechanistic loyalists. Academia has been reduced to an impotent reservoir of pluralistic derelicts who deserted biblical Christology long ago for popular eccentricity and shadows of liberal pluralism. There is hardly even a noticeable vestige of the legacy they were founded upon.
Whatever else could be added, and the addition could indeed go on, I surmise at the very least that the primacy of Christ has been reduced to a passive whisper or benign assumption. This is perhaps not always sweepingly true within the technical equations of doctrine and theology (albeit, it is becoming more pronounced within this discipline as well) but it is glaringly obvious within the bounds of pedagogy and clerical pontification by and large!! And I endeavor to say that the former is met with Christological dissolution as the latter predominates.
If the entire compass of scripture is Christ-centered then it stands to reason that all we say and do within Christendom should hinge upon Christ and Christ alone!!! As Paul reminded the Corinthians, "I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (I Cor. 2:2).
Michael Horton's remarks and statistical conclusions below underscore the disastrous implications of abandoning Christological pedagogy and the associated thrust of Solus Christus in particular:
"Today, once more, this affirmation is in trouble. According to University of Virginia sociologist James Hunter, 35% of evangelical seminarians deny that faith in Christ is absolutely necessary. According to George Barna, that is the same figure for conservative, evangelical Protestants in America: "God will save all good people when they die, regardless of whether they've trusted in Christ," they agreed.
Eighty-five percent of American adults believe that they will stand before God to be judged. They believe in hell, but only 11% think they might go there. R.C. Sproul observed that to the degree that people think they are good enough to pass divine inspection, and are oblivious to the holiness of God, to that extent they will not see Christ as necessary. That is why over one-fourth of the "born again" evangelicals surveyed agreed with a statement that one would think might raise red flags even for those who might agree with the same thing more subtly put: "If a person is good, or does enough good things for others during life, they will earn a place in Heaven." Furthermore, when asked whether they agreed with the following statement: "Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and others all pray to the same God, even though they use different names for that God," two-thirds of the evangelicals didn't find that objectionable. Barna observes "how little difference there is between the responses of those who regularly attend church services and those who are unchurched." One respondent, an Independent Fundamentalist, said, "What is important in their case is that they have conformed to the law of God as they know it in their hearts."
The aforementioned effects are resultant wherever and whenever Christological pedagogy is lost. A people's attention and faith inordinately shift from Christ to peripheral matters at the time a healthy and thriving Christology is on the wane. A ministers duty, nay, every Christian's duty and privilege is to be Christ centered in all things. I close with the words of Charles Spurgeon, "Preach Christ, always and everywhere. He is the whole gospel. His person, offices, and work must be our one great , all-comprehending theme"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
